Category Archives: NASA

Well, it’s about time! This has been known for years by many people, including us, yet NOAA did nothing about it until now. We’re still suspicions and wonder how many more should be closed down or moved elsewhere. We’ve yet to feel it get hotter at night than daytime, (unless we turned on the heater) which is evidently something NOAA was unable to fathom until now. You can read more here.

Brought to you by the same people who can’t tell you why there’s been no global warming for the past 15 or so years, explain why sea-level rise has effectively halted, explain why Antarctic just about broke the record for the highest minimum sea-ice extent, or why the ice is reforming in the Arctic, we get these pearls of wisdom.

‘Something unexpected’ is happening on the Sun, Nasa has warned.

This year was supposed to be the year of ‘solar maximum,’ the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle.

But as this image reveals, solar activity is relatively low.

Like the numerous global warming faux pas and excuses, some enterprising scientist has pulled a rabbit out of his hat explanation for this.

However, Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center believes he has a different explanation.

‘This is solar maximum,’ he says.

‘But it looks different from what we expected because it is double-peaked.’

Perhaps they should consider moving to Stonehenge, or perhaps hiring those wacky guys from Big Bang Theory.

It appears to us that predictions of the Antarctic and Arctic being ice-free are about as impressive as predicting dinosaurs are having a comeback and will reappear any decade now, but we just don’t know what one. Why do we say this?

From our take, it looks like the ice at both poles is indeed making a comeback, not receding. As you can see from this article at The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the Antarctic ice is back and could even set a new record:

It is very likely 2013 will go down in the history books as having the 2nd highest Antarctic sea ice minimum of all time. In 2013 there was 1.4 million sq km more sea ice than there was in 1997 at minimum.

Top 6 Minimum Extents:

Year

Day

Minimum Extent

2008

51

3.69176

2013

50

3.6504

2003

48

3.6257

2001

50

3.44094

1995

55

3.32988

2004

51

3.25927

Lowest 6 Minimums:

Year

Day

Minimum_Extent

1997

58

2.26415

1993

50

2.28078

1984

58

2.38292

2006

51

2.4866

1992

54

2.49238

1980

57

2.52686

You can plainly see from the below chart that there’s plenty of ice this year. To reiterate, it could even be a new record.

So what about those dire Antarctic predictions? Well, here’s some links for you to read.

Antarctic Ice Melt: This one has it losing-gaining. Must be like that global warming caused cooling and worse blizzards with less snow or something.

What about all those dire Arctic predictions telling us that by such and such a year you’ll be able to circumnavigate the North Pole in your kayak? Well, frankly, there’s so many predictions that someday, it may be one of them will get lucky, but only because it will be like the stopped clock that’s correct twice per day. It will be due to blind luck and not those garbage-in-preferred-result-out computer models.

As you can see by the below chart, there doesn’t appear to be a big problem in the Arctic either. So far it’s way ahead of 2007, the year that caused some warmers to hit the panic button.

Here’s a sampling for your review with links to the articles.

Ice Free Arctic Update – This one’s too funny. Why? Well, here we have “Top NASA experts predicted an ice-free Arctic for 2012.” Well, sorry guys, but 2012 is gone and that ice is not only still there, there’s a whole shitload of it.

There’s plenty more predictions out there but we don’t believe we have enough bandwidth to post them all.

We could book a summer vacation to the soon to be hot spot of Point Barrow, Alaska, or Western Antarctica, but it’s kind of hard to book in advance when you don’t know what year, decade, century, not to mention if it’s ever going to happen.

It appears us deniers or skeptics were right. People like the Goracle, Pachauri, Hansen and others of the warmer persuasion have been passing off BS as scientific fact. It appears the gullible, all over the globe have been falling for it, too! We won’t hold our breath waiting for anyone to snap back into reality. We’re sure the BS will continue and the idiots at the EPA will continue to use Global Warming as a tool to get their way, regardless if it’s based upon reality or not. California, no doubt will continue to implement the AB32 law that creates a carbon trading fiasco. After all, it’s really about the money, not pollution. Read all the sordid details at the source below.

Well, well, isn’t it funny how everyone who doesn’t believe in global warming and who doesn’t genuflect at the sight of Al Gore is accused by the warmers of being paid off by the oil companies or the Koch brothers?

Put the shoe on the other foot and find out global warming’s ‘hot’ scientist Dr. James Hansen is being paid by a green group and we see nothing hitting the fan in the MSM at all. Nothing here to see folks, move on now. If the warmers do it it’s perfectly OK. So, what happened?

So on Friday the Obama administration stopped fighting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and released documents showing that Hansen was paid $250 an hour by a Canadian law firm for testimony against developing Alberta’s oil sands; income which Hansen does not appear to have disclosed.

$250 an hour? Not bad, we wonder if he got meals, hotel and transportation, too? We also wonder why he didn’t report it as required by law? So who was Hansen testifying for?

A January 20, 2009, document shows that the Canadian law firm Ackroyd LLP retained Hansen to prepare a report “regarding the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions from the Joslyn Oil Sand Mine.”

Ackroyd represents the Oil Sand Environmental Coalition (OSEC), a group fighting to stop oil sand development.Federal government employees are not allowed to accept money for expert testimony in proceedings before a court or agency of the United States. (This took place in Canada FYI).

And what about those reporting requirements? Reporting? Evidently Hansen must have a special exclusion for warmers or something.

It is still unclear how much money Hansen received from Ackroyd, however, since his 2010 financial disclosure form did not list them as a source of income. Neither does his 2009 form. There is also no record of his disclosing any travel expenses related to his 2010 oil sands testimony in Canada.

Of course, we also don’t see any rush from anybody at NASA, GISS, the Justice Department, the State Department or any other department to investigate and if need be prosecute. You probably won’t see anything in the warmer MSM either. Hypocrites!

Next time you read an article about global warming that states the computer models predicted something remember this article, which offers proof positive that the computer models used by so-called scientists to predicts unprecedented global warming are crap.

From Scientific American we get this:

When it comes to assigning blame for the current economic doldrums, the quants who build the complicated mathematic financial risk models, and the traders who rely on them, deserve their share of the blame. [See“A Formula For Economic Calamity” in the November 2011 issue]. But what if there were a way to come up with simpler models that perfectly reflected reality? And what if we had perfect financial data to plug into them?

Incredibly, even under those utterly unrealizable conditions, we’d still get bad predictions from models.

That’s right, even a computer model that is “perfect” isn’t worth the electricity used to run it. The problem is calibration. In a nutshell, take a “perfect” model and tweak it any and it is no longer going to predict anything correctly.

The problem, of course, is that while these different versions of the model might all match the historical data, they would in general generate different predictions going forward–and sure enough, his calibrated model produced terrible predictions compared to the “reality” originally generated by the perfect model. Calibration–a standard procedure used by all modelers in all fields, including finance–had rendered a perfect model seriously flawed. Though taken aback, he continued his study, and found that having even tiny flaws in the model or the historical data made the situation far worse. “As far as I can tell, you’d have exactly the same situation with any model that has to be calibrated,” says Carter.

Note, to reiterate. it doesn’t matter if it agreed with past data, a process called hindcasting, which is a big line you hear from climate modelers, it still comes up with crap predictions! Getting one to agree with the weather in 1900 means nothing according to this article.

The next time you read some horrific article about how global warming is going to make the sea-level rise, cause droughts, floods, and just about anything else you can name including 3-eyed cows and cooties, remember that the climate model used to predict it is crap. Perhaps it was even tweaked to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.

Proof? The computer models used to predict tomorrow’s weather aren’t even right all the time. So, how can they predict what’s going to happen 20-30-100 years in the future?

An independent climate science think tank produces evidence from a leading infrared thermometer manufacturer proving that climatologists were mistakenly taking incorrect readings of atmospheric temperatures. Latest findings are set to trigger a paradigm shift in climate science.

Researchers from Canada, USA, Mexico and Britain this week announce a startling discovery that destroys 20 years’ of thinking among government climatologists.

Climate scientists had long believed infrared thermometers measured thermal radiation from the atmosphere and assumed it was ‘proof’ of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Their assumption was that infrared thermometers (IRT’s) were measuring ‘back radiated’ heat from greenhouse gases (including water vapor and carbon dioxide). But damning new evidence proves IRT’s do no such thing.

Now a world-leading manufacturer of these high-tech instruments, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., has confirmed that IRT’s are deliberately set to AVOID registering any feedback from greenhouse gases. Thus climate scientists were measuring everything but the energy emitted by carbon dioxide and water vapor.

One of the researchers involved, Alan Siddons, has analyzed the GHE for over six years. He has long condemned the practice of using IRT’s as a means of substantiating the increasingly discredited hypothesis.

In 2010 Siddons and his colleagues debated the GHE issue with fellow global warming skeptic, and GHE believer, Dr. Roy Spencer. An unmoved Spencer posted the following on his blog (August 8, 2010 at 6:38 AM):

“The IR thermometer DOES see the atmosphere immediately in front of it, as well as most of the rest of the atmosphere along its line of sight… The final calibrated brightness temperature can be roughly considered to be the weighted average temperature of all of those layers.”

“Whereas the early IRT’s required a broad spectral band of IR [infrared] to obtain a workable detector output, modern IRT’s routinely have spectral responses of only one micron.” [1.].

The company explains why this is so:

“instruments necessarily need to have this selective and narrow spectral response to allow the IR thermometer to see through atmospheric or other interference.”

MIC goes further to advise that IRT’s are routinely calibrated for selective spectral responses of only 8-14 microns [2.]. The company says IRT’s are set to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements. This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.”

“For an IR thermometer sensitive to wavelengths from, say, 8 to 14 microns, you could plot a weighting function profile that shows the proportions of IR energy being received from different altitudes.”

Clearly, from the above statement Spencer has identified a spectral range in which his instrument CANNOT detect any IR energy from CO2 or water vapor, thus making any such “plot” pointless and absurd for the purpose he is trying to prove.

Thus Siddons ably demonstrates that when Spencer was pointing his IRT at the sky he was deluding himself that he was measuring the energy of ‘greenhouse gases.’ Thus Spencer’s erroneous assumption that infrared thermometers prove the existence of ‘back radiation’ coming from carbon dioxide (CO2) is refuted.

“The records would depend on the altitude of those globules. For example, a globule radiating 60 W/m^2 would be at 30 km in altitude; globules at surface level, which start rising and are very hot because they are in contact with the hotter surface, would emit around 92 W/m^2, etc.”

“removes this dangerous weapon from the Sky Dragons’ toolbox once and for all.”

Olson, along with Siddons, Nahle and Canadian astrophysicist, Joseph Postma have been collaborating with two dozen other well-qualified experts for over a year on this international project. The teams are addressing in great detail the flaws of the greenhouse gas effect, a cornerstone of the science of the discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The Fatal False Assumption of Greenhouse Gas Effect Believers

But Spencer can be forgiven for his false assumptions because he is in very large company; almost all climatologists have fallen into the same trap. To his great credit, Spencer is one of the few such experts willing to even debating the existence of a GHE.

Astrophysicist, Joe Postma chips in to explain that:

“When pointed horizontally, the IRT sensor will report the ambient air temperature. When pointed vertically, it gives a reading for the integrated average temperature of the vertical air-column, weighted for optical depth “penetration” of the instrument.”

Postma advises us:

“So think about that. If ANY parcel of air emitted the full intensity of the Stefan-Boltzman Equation, then when that sensor was pointed straight up, it STILL HAD a cubic meter of warm, ground-temperature air directly above it, just like it did when it was pointing horizontally.”

The air has to emit SOME radiation though, because any ensemble of particles with a temperature higher than absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin) emits thermal radiation.

Siddons, Postma, Nahle and their Slayers think tank colleagues have a point; Mikron Instrument Company Inc. has thrown into the mix an important caveat for consideration for those who misinterpret the readings from IR thermometers.

So it is the company that builds IR thermometers that destroys another cornerstone of the religion of the ‘greenhouse gas effect.’

For further compelling examples of how the indomitable ‘Slayers’ have debunked IPCC junk science visit here.